basically it sounds like the cardinals don't want to offer Mathieu any gauranteed money in his contract. His agent says that is ridiculous.

I think it's an idiot move as well. If you didn't feel like he was worth compensating as a third round pick, don't pick him. If you have that little faith in him, don't pick him. If you feel like you need to "punish" him for the past right out of the gate, let someone else pick him.

joeseahawks wrote:Why would you draft a guy, you don't intend to pay?It is not the first guy with a baggage in the NFL, is he?

How do they not intend to pay him? There's a difference between no guaranteed money and not paying. Guaranteed money means that even if he decides to act the fool and never play a down in the NFL he still gets paid. Non-guaranteed means if you don't act the fool and you actually do the work and play, you get your check every week.

Many players on our roster signed without guarantees. it's not uncommon at all, especially with troubled players.

It's likely that they will work out some sort of signing bonus that comes with a hefty morals clause. Those are quite common with troubled players.

“You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”

If you draft a guy you're taking away the opportunity for another team to draft him; IMO to turn around and offer him an unreasonable contract is garbage. And it is unreasonable. Guaranteed money is everything in the NFL. I realize some guys sign for little or no guaranteed money, that's because they have no real choice in the matter; they can play or go get a job at KFC. In Matheiu's case he is a playmaker in the secondary whom other teams would be happy to have, if not for a 3rd round pick but likely enough to give guaranteed money too. He shouldn't be pre-penalized by the team that drafts him for things he *might* do wrong in the NFL, and it's not that teams place to punish him for past crimes.

Your Lottery lucky just to get that call to play in the NFL. You have a pretty bad history. Deal with it. I do agee with taking the guy in the third round if your going to put this kind of block on him. The NFLPA will know this sets a bad precedent, they should fight it.

If you really really pushed me I would give home ONE dollar guaranteed. This is a guy that failed more drug tests than he can remember, signed up for rehab but got arrested after that and then took the out of going to the draft.

Not sure if the middle ground is there for rookies - guaranteed money for injury only

After he claims he can't remember how many UA's he's failed he's lucky just to get a shot in the NFL.As stated before if he puts in the work he'll get paid. Why should anyone playing a game for a living get gauranteed money?You don't and you have to work all year. Besides there's no gaurante he makes the team.

taz291819 wrote:I don't disagree with the Cards at all. I wouldn't guarantee him any money either. Yes, he'll get a signing bonus, but he has to earn the rest. It's basically, don't smoke weed, and you'll get paid.

The guy made his bed, now he has to deal with the consequences.

If it's basically "don't smoke weed and you'll get paid," how friggin' hard is that? I'd offer him the same clause in a heartbeat. In fact, considering his past, I'd probably mandate it too. It's a guarantee against him screwing up and costing them games. There's cheapskate, which admittedly the Cardinals are, and there's a smart bet, which this is.

"Hey kid, we're offering you a crapton of money. All you have to do is not smoke weed."

He'd have to be dumber than a sack full of hammers not to sign a contract like that. Or Ricky Williams.

"The ultimate number is W's, and that’s what matters in Santa Clara. As such, Jed York does not own the 49ers; Russell Wilson does." - Paul Gutierrez

ClumsyLurk wrote:I'm with the others that question their choice to offer him this crap after selecting him in the third. If there's any doubt about his ability to not smoke ganj, don't pick him in the third.

Yea, count me among those that thought that was a really, really dumb pick for them. Of course, it's viewed as an A draft by the pundits, so what do I know?

"The ultimate number is W's, and that’s what matters in Santa Clara. As such, Jed York does not own the 49ers; Russell Wilson does." - Paul Gutierrez

Obviously he has the talent to help any team if he's serious. I simply think it's a dick move to pick him in the third and then offer him a charity contract. More retarded than Ricky was Ditka for trading every pick in their draft for him.Though I don't even know what 3rd rounders typically get. So there's that

|~=[==~||~==]=~| ||Tfs LnD ] [ HAWKS||RIP BFS. He was kind of a douche, but he was our kind of a douche.

IIRC, the Rams wrote consultants into Jenkin's contract last year. That seems a bit more reasonable.

Yes, there were personal conditions on Jenkins last year that took some time to work out before everything was signed. I think it was a money manager approved by the Rams' management (as he has 4 kids with 3 women and so needs to pay them) and also some kind of personal life manager. Not completely sure. They worked it out, and seem to be doing great now. Fisher is seeming to have a knack for the troubled player though - maybe it's the attitude he has and the belief in them.

And also remember that he pulled Jenkins and Givens out of the first Niner game with no hesitation.

I'm not familiar with the Cards' restrictions - but is the question of guaranteed money based on football performance, or personal issues such as passing drug tests? I see no reason not to put personal conditions on him given his history and as he says he is ready to step up. Don't know if they are handling it correctly though.

Yeah, the Cards picked him in the 3rd round, and he's slotted into a pretty limited salary window. The only difference is that the Cards are trying to protect themselves by not giving a bunch of cash up front to a guy who has yet to prove he can handle it. He won't be getting paid any less than the pick who followed him as long as he stays dedicated to his job.

What would be fair? To write in a contact clause that he loses his guaranteed money if he goes off the rails? How is that any different? He's a risky pick, and any NFL team is going to take some measures to reduce that risk where possible.

Personally, he should be delighted to even fight for a contract, because you know what? The second contract is the one you play to earn, and if he proves himself (which, editorially, I don't think he will), he's going to get a pretty nice bounty of guaranteed money at that time. This is more stupidity, and it should make the Cardinals even more leery of the advice being handed to the kid.

The cardinals essentially are doing him a disservice by drafting him, and then refusing to give him any guaranteed money.

If they wouldn't have drafted him, surely another team would have, and would have given him some guaranteed money.

You're essentially saying it's ok for an NFL team to take money out of a rookie's pocket if they choose to do so by drafting them and offering them a sub-par contract.

If you want to build in drug/behavior-related clauses into a contract that is one thing for someone with a history, but to say 0 guaranteed money is just a petty way to exert your authority over a player before he even gets to your facility because you think your'e doing him a 'favor'.

Sorry, this perception that he needs 'favors' or some chairty or some pity to find a job in the NFL is ridiculous. He wouldn't have lasted past the 4th round, maybe not the third, if Arizona hadn't picked him up.

Hawknballs wrote:The cardinals essentially are doing him a disservice by drafting him, and then refusing to give him any guaranteed money.

If they wouldn't have drafted him, surely another team would have, and would have given him some guaranteed money.

You're essentially saying it's ok for an NFL team to take money out of a rookie's pocket if they choose to do so by drafting them and offering them a sub-par contract.

If you want to build in drug/behavior-related clauses into a contract that is one thing for someone with a history, but to say 0 guaranteed money is just a petty way to exert your authority over a player before he even gets to your facility because you think your'e doing him a 'favor'.

Sorry, this perception that he needs 'favors' or some chairty or some pity to find a job in the NFL is ridiculous. He wouldn't have lasted past the 4th round, maybe not the third, if Arizona hadn't picked him up.

Your anger stems from your assumption that another NFL team would have given him guaranteed money or that he wouldn't have fallen further in the draft. The first assumption is likely very untrue - I can't imagine many teams were going to throw guaranteed money at him, or if they did, it was going to be a lot lower given his draft slot AND backed by the ability of the team to withdraw the guaranteed money if Mathieu failed drug tests which would amount to the same thing. As to his falling further in the draft, who knows, but considering how far someone like Quinton Patton fell, it's not unrealistic to think Tyrann would have dropped another round or more.

Hawknballs wrote:The cardinals essentially are doing him a disservice by drafting him, and then refusing to give him any guaranteed money.

If they wouldn't have drafted him, surely another team would have, and would have given him some guaranteed money.

You're essentially saying it's ok for an NFL team to take money out of a rookie's pocket if they choose to do so by drafting them and offering them a sub-par contract.

If you want to build in drug/behavior-related clauses into a contract that is one thing for someone with a history, but to say 0 guaranteed money is just a petty way to exert your authority over a player before he even gets to your facility because you think your'e doing him a 'favor'.

Sorry, this perception that he needs 'favors' or some chairty or some pity to find a job in the NFL is ridiculous. He wouldn't have lasted past the 4th round, maybe not the third, if Arizona hadn't picked him up.

Wrong.

If another team drafted him, say, in the 4th round, he would be making LESS than he would with the Cards - regardless of the guaranteed money. The only issue is when it is delivered to him. That's not a disservice... it's just business.

Consider it this way. If you order a widget from a company and tell them you'll pay them $100 dollars for it when it's delivered, is that a disservice compared to another customer who would give the company $60 for the same widget, but be willing to pay $30 of it up front? I don't think it is. And it would be good business sense for you to only pay after delivery if the company has earned a reputation for failing to deliver products before.

the problem with your widget example is that you make it sound as if everyone has a choice, that's my issue here. Being drafted shouldn't be a net "punishment". There is no way of knowing if Matheiu would have been drafted with the very next pick. We will never know, because he was drafted by the cardinals and then offered a sub-standard contract. As I stated there are a number of ways they could and will build drug-testing policies into his contract. Starting off with a 0 guarantee contract is just a weak move by an intimidated organization trying to overcompensate. How many millions have the dumped into bad QB play, but they are going to cheap out on a guy who's been nothing but a playmaker on the field but likes to smoke weed? Unnecessary over-reaction by an insecure franchise. If that is the way you need to do business, don't draft questionable guys.

Also, I have no 'anger'. . . not sure where that assumption came from. I just think it's a petty move by the cards ownership. That doesn't make me angry.

Hawknballs wrote:the problem with your widget example is that you make it sound as if the customer has a choice, that's my issue here. Being drafted shouldn't be a net "punishment". There is no way of knowing if Matheiu would have been drafted with the very next pick. We will never know, because he was drafted by the cardinals and then offered a sub-standard contract. As I stated there are a number of ways they could and will build drug-testing policies into his contract. Starting off with a 0 guarantee contract is just a weak move by an intimidated organization trying to overcompensate. How many millions have the dumped into bad QB play, but they are going to cheap out on a guy who's been nothing but a playmaker on the field but likes to smoke weed? Unnecessary over-reaction by an insecure franchise. If that is the way you need to do business, don't draft questionable guys.

Also, I have no 'anger'. . . not sure where that assumption came from. I just think it's a petty move by the cards ownership. That doesn't make me angry.

The team is the customer, not the player. Just for clarification's sake. And that lack of choice is just the entry fee for the privilege of playing in the NFL. Players understand it, teams understand it. Similarly, teams don't get to just go make an offer to any incoming rookie they want, even if they want to make a better offer to a guy... they can only make offers to their draft choices and undrafted players. So the limitations go both ways, at least in part.

And Mathieu isn't being punished, man. The rumor is that his contract is going to contain some different elements due to his unique situation and past. He's still going to get a contract, and he'll earn every bit of it as long as he keeps himself out of trouble.

As for your little "cheap out on him because he likes to smoke weed" line? Please. Don't peddle that lame garbage. There's a difference between a guy who "likes to smoke weed" and a guy who claimed he failed at least 10 drug tests and got his playmaking ass kicked off his college team due to a chronic (heh) inability to stay clean. That's beyond "likes to smoke weed" and verges on addiction/dependency. You tell me how well giving a bunch of money up front to an addict sounds.

If they are worried he's an addict, don't draft him. Why would you draft someone you are that worried about, in the third round? Obviously it's a risk that is worth while for them, but that's just what it is, a risk, and while you can structure a contract to protect yourself, you also don't have to leap right into a 0-guarantee contract.

Hawknballs wrote:If they are worried he's an addict, don't draft him. Why would you draft someone you are that worried about, in the third round? Obviously it's a risk that is worth while for them, but that's just what it is, a risk, and while you can structure a contract to protect yourself, you also don't have to leap right into a 0-guarantee contract.

You draft someone you are that worried about because you think they have that much talent. If he proves to be worthwhile, he earns all the money in his contract, guaranteed or not, and likely earns some definitely guaranteed money in his 2nd deal. If he proves to be too much of a risk and a detriment to the team, the team is only out the draft pick and whatever they've paid him to that point. Seems fair to me, given Mathieu's skillset and past. I imagine if he was LESS of a risk, the Cards wouldn't leap right to a zero guarantee... but that's not the case.

Hawknballs wrote:If they are worried he's an addict, don't draft him. Why would you draft someone you are that worried about, in the third round? Obviously it's a risk that is worth while for them, but that's just what it is, a risk, and while you can structure a contract to protect yourself, you also don't have to leap right into a 0-guarantee contract.

You draft someone you are that worried about because you think they have that much talent. If he proves to be worthwhile, he earns all the money in his contract, guaranteed or not, and likely earns some definitely guaranteed money in his 2nd deal. If he proves to be too much of a risk and a detriment to the team, the team is only out the draft pick and whatever they've paid him to that point. Seems fair to me, given Mathieu's skillset and past. I imagine if he was LESS of a risk, the Cards wouldn't leap right to a zero guarantee... but that's not the case.

Is this normal for draft prospects though? I understand guys who've been in and out of the NFL and are free agents... But a draft pick?

|~=[==~||~==]=~| ||Tfs LnD ] [ HAWKS||RIP BFS. He was kind of a douche, but he was our kind of a douche.

Why are we saying he has no choices? The CFL is always looking for talented players. I don't believe there's a CFL rule that states NFL drafted players can't sign with CFL teams is there? IIRC it's happened before that a drafted player crossed the border to play there instead of the NFL (although it's a rarity)

The guy isn't getting screwed (well except for the fact he's stuck in the cardinals franchise for at least 3 years). He'll get paid a game check for each and every game he's on the roster. He hasn't earned anything more and it's a risk to give him more given his history.

I'm sure they'll work out a contract with lots of personal clauses in there and it will get done, it'll just take some time.

“You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”

Hawknballs wrote:If they are worried he's an addict, don't draft him. Why would you draft someone you are that worried about, in the third round? Obviously it's a risk that is worth while for them, but that's just what it is, a risk, and while you can structure a contract to protect yourself, you also don't have to leap right into a 0-guarantee contract.

You draft someone you are that worried about because you think they have that much talent. If he proves to be worthwhile, he earns all the money in his contract, guaranteed or not, and likely earns some definitely guaranteed money in his 2nd deal. If he proves to be too much of a risk and a detriment to the team, the team is only out the draft pick and whatever they've paid him to that point. Seems fair to me, given Mathieu's skillset and past. I imagine if he was LESS of a risk, the Cards wouldn't leap right to a zero guarantee... but that's not the case.

Is this normal for draft prospects though? I understand guys who've been in and out of the NFL and are free agents... But a draft pick?

Why does it have to be normal? How many draft prospects have we seen like Mathieu? How many guys who got kicked off their college teams for repeated drug offenses have been drafted? I'd argue that there's very little "normal" about Mathieu, so adhering to tradition might not be the right play here.

RW technically didn’t get guaranteed money... He did receive a signing bonus (620K) but that was it. 4 years for 3 mil. What is there to complain about? Prove yourself and make bank your second contract.

a signing bonus is guaranteed money. That's pretty m uch what we're talking about. There are any number of bonuses that count as guaranteed money once the requirements of the bonus are met, one of them is signing, others are roster bonuses for being on the team at a certain date. All of which are pretty typical for rookies.

Hawknballs wrote:a signing bonus is guaranteed money. That's pretty m uch what we're talking about. There are any number of bonuses that count as guaranteed money once the requirements of the bonus are met, one of them is signing, others are roster bonuses for being on the team at a certain date. All of which are pretty typical for rookies.

You know what else is guaranteed? The paycheck you get for playing each game in the NFL. You play a game, you get paid a game check. Complaining because you want guarantees BEFORE you've done anything for the team that did you the favor of drafting you, is BS. If he thinks he's worth so much, let him play in the CFL.

“You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”

First, it's been reported that the Cards aren't necessarily not giving him a signing bonus. The guaranteed part is different, not including the signing bonus.

But yeah, he should refuse to sign regardless, and then he'll sit out of the NFL for the year and not make a penny. If he doesn't sign, he sits, doesn't get paid, can't do anything about it, and has to hope someone drafts him next year. The Cards have the rights to him until next year's draft.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with what the Cardinals are doing. The concept that the Cards shouldn't have drafted him if they didn't want to promise him any money is absurd. If Mathieu really intends to change his ways and to show up and work hard, then there shouldn't be an issue with the money being guaranteed or not because he'll earn it.

A legitimate chance to play in the NFL is what the Cardinals have given Mathieu and that is far more than he deserves given his past. If he wanted to be treated the same as most other players maybe he should have made the choices of most other players who have shown their work ethic and dedication, and who weren't kicked off of their college team for repeated violations. He hasn't been able to keep promises he's made to his teams in the past, so now he has to deal with not being promised anything until he does show he's willing to put the effort in.

Also, saying another team would have given him guaranteed money or drafted him is all just conjecture. He got a chance to compete in the NFL and earn a decent salary being a 2nd day pick. He needs to step up and show he deserves that money by working hard. Crying about the salary you're offered first thing after you're lucky to be drafted isn't a good look.

To all you knuckleheads who are saying "I wouldn't give him any guaranteed money either," then you shouldn't/wouldn't draft him. If you think a guy is only worth a totally non-guaranteed contract, don't draft him in a position where a contract with guaranteed money is the norm. You wait or you pay, simple as that. You can't have your cake and eat it, too (assuming Honeybadger didn't eat it when he got the munchies).

pinksheets wrote:To all you knuckleheads who are saying "I wouldn't give him any guaranteed money either," then you shouldn't/wouldn't draft him. If you think a guy is only worth a totally non-guaranteed contract, don't draft him in a position where a contract with guaranteed money is the norm. You wait or you pay, simple as that. You can't have your cake and eat it, too (assuming Honeybadger didn't eat it when he got the munchies).

This is exactly right. Part of when you are making an assessment of whether to pick a player in a given is the guaranteed money you are going to give him. If they didn't want to pay it, then they shouldn't have drafted him in that spot.

Is it confirmed they want to do this or is it just a rumor. If they did this I find it a terrible way to start off with the kid.

I love the "he can get guaranteed paycheck for every game" nonsense. It's entirely ignorant to the NFL CBA and business model. The game comes with inherent risks. Guaranteed money is the ONLY reward for taking those risks. If Mathieu gets paralyzed in the first preseason game, that's it, he gets nothing.

And NONE of you saying that the Cardinals are right, would take a fiscal deal less than your peers. Even if you’re a garbage man, you're not going to say "hmm, okay, I'll take less than what you pay everyone else". And chances are you cant get paralyzed doing your job...Mathieu can.

pinksheets wrote:To all you knuckleheads who are saying "I wouldn't give him any guaranteed money either," then you shouldn't/wouldn't draft him. If you think a guy is only worth a totally non-guaranteed contract, don't draft him in a position where a contract with guaranteed money is the norm. You wait or you pay, simple as that. You can't have your cake and eat it, too (assuming Honeybadger didn't eat it when he got the munchies).

Man, if there were recs at .net every post you make would be green. Nailed it.

bigtrain21 wrote:This is exactly right. Part of when you are making an assessment of whether to pick a player in a given is the guaranteed money you are going to give him. If they didn't want to pay it, then they shouldn't have drafted him in that spot.

Is it confirmed they want to do this or is it just a rumor. If they did this I find it a terrible way to start off with the kid.

SI's Peter King reported it, but Mathieu's agent is saying they haven't had contract discussions yet and they would refuse the deal if it had no guaranteed money.

Its all just hyped up drama right now. They're more than likely going to find a contract that protects the team and still gets Mathieu something guaranteed.

onanygivensunday wrote:I believe that the Cards have every right to do with Mathieu as the Jags did wiith Justin Blackmon.

The club has a right to protect themselves.

They're not offering anything close to what the Jags offered Blackmon. Just saying.

That goes without saying.

Blackmon was drafted #5 overall and Mathieu was drafted in the 3rd round.

All I'm saying is JAC put a clause in Blackmon's contract that protects them from paying all the guaranteed money to Blackmon in the event he doesn't stay clean, which he hasn't. Whether or not JAC exercises that out by cutting him is a topic for anther discussion.